PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 28, 2017
Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017
This bill amends the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to allow the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) to subject a bank holding company to enhanced supervision if: (1) the company has been identified as a global systemically important company; or (2) the risk of the company's financial distress, or the nature of the company's activities, could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. Currently, companies are subject to this type of oversight if they possess at least $50 billion in assets or are a nonbank financial company under the FRB's supervision.
The Financial Stability Oversight Council must approve of any metrics used by the FRB in determining by regulation that a category of bank holding companies is subject to enhanced supervision.
Under this bill, companies subject to enhanced supervision may be required to limit mergers and acquisitions, restrict products offered, or maintain a certain debt ratio.
The FRB must publish the list of companies that have been identified as requiring enhanced supervision.
People & committees
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1893 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1893 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1893 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1893 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.